Take action now:

Rich Lowry, illegal immigration, and president Bush

Lowry discusses the (faux) conversions to border hawks by New Mexico's Bill Richarson and Arizona's Janet Napolitano in "Border Politics: Dems on immigration".

He gets this bit right:
...Richardson defends New Mexico's extended hand to illegals on grounds that the state is "immigrant friendly" and has to be "practical." What's impractical is the idea that immigration enforcement can be a matter of simply better policing along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Interior enforcement has to be part of the solution, including a crackdown on employers who hire illegals and steps to signal to illegals that they aren't welcome here. It is nonsensical to say, as Richardson and Napolitano are in effect saying, "Gee, the border is too porous, but we're going to give illegals the same privileges as citizens when they get here."

By rights, Democrats should be the most anti-illegal-immigration of the two parties. The benefits of illegal immigration go disproportionately to employers and people rich enough to hire nannies, pool cleaners, etc. They get to hire low-paid workers with very few rights. The costs fall on minorities and low-skill workers, whose wages are undercut...
But, then he falls flat with this bit about Our Leader:
The leader of the pro-enforcement forces should be President Bush. After a brutal year defending an unpopular war and a less popular Social Security initiative, favoring something the public wants — an immigration crackdown — might be what he needs. Of course, that would require Bush, who has been pushing for a quasi-amnesty and a temporary-worker program, to change his tune. But if Richardson and Napolitano can, why can't he?
Uh, because he and the GOP leadership are completely corrupt? That's certainly something Lowry should consider.

Immigration2005b · Tue, 08/23/2005 - 12:54 · Importance: 1

Tue, 08/23/2005 - 22:43
eh

"completely corrupt"

I dunno, is Bush really intelligent enuf to be "corrupt"? To me you need to have brains to be conniving and "corrupt", and I'm still not sure Bush fits that bill -- he seems more a hackneyed oaf to me, in a rather conventional way, i.e. not caring to enforce immigration law, for a myriad of reasons, is pretty establishment at this point, isn't it?